David Fusitu'a leaving Warriors to join Leeds in Super League

[pedro]

Sezer isnt marquee according to my Rhino husband.

Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk

Well he must have decided that it was best to take a big drop in salary to join Leeds Leeds salary cap position doesn't make sense if you look at their new recruits and those that have exited. They are either fudging the cap or more players have yet to leave.

Not according to a post in the Martin Offiah thread. A substantial amount of his wage is being paid by his former club.

I fail to see how this doesn’t break the salary cap rules but it apparently doesn’t. I am sure his former club must be some sort of registered company which makes them no different than say Heinz in Wigan. If Heinz desired to pay half Batemans salary as sponsorship that would count on the cap.

we did the same with Trent

[DaveO]

Well he must have decided that it was best to take a big drop in salary to join Leeds Leeds salary cap position doesn't make sense if you look at their new recruits and those that have exited. They are either fudging the cap or more players have yet to leave.

Not according to a post in the Martin Offiah thread. A substantial amount of his wage is being paid by his former club.

I fail to see how this doesn’t break the salary cap rules but it apparently doesn’t. I am sure his former club must be some sort of registered company which makes them no different than say Heinz in Wigan. If Heinz desired to pay half Batemans salary as sponsorship that would count on the cap.

we did the same with Trent

So what? I still don’t see how it’s not breaking the cap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pedro]

Not according to a post in the Martin Offiah thread. A substantial amount of his wage is being paid by his former club.

I fail to see how this doesn’t break the salary cap rules but it apparently doesn’t. I am sure his former club must be some sort of registered company which makes them no different than say Heinz in Wigan. If Heinz desired to pay half Batemans salary as sponsorship that would count on the cap.

we did the same with Trent

So what? I still don’t see how it’s not breaking the cap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

its simple really....we pay x and it counts on the cap, what they are still paying counts on their cap

[nathan_rugby]

we did the same with Trent

So what? I still don’t see how it’s not breaking the cap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

its simple really....we pay x and it counts on the cap, what they are still paying counts on their cap

I don’t think DaveO is questioning the how, that’s obvious. He’s questioning the loophole and whether or not it should be allowed.

[Levrier]

Dare I say against the spirit of the cap.

[widdenoldboy]

Whats the ruling on sending players out on loan?

[pedro]

So what? I still don’t see how it’s not breaking the cap.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

its simple really....we pay x and it counts on the cap, what they are still paying counts on their cap

I don’t think DaveO is questioning the how, that’s obvious. He’s questioning the loophole and whether or not it should be allowed.

Like mentioned above, would it not be the same as loaning someone out and paying some of the wage?

[DaveO]

its simple really....we pay x and it counts on the cap, what they are still paying counts on their cap

I don’t think DaveO is questioning the how, that’s obvious. He’s questioning the loophole and whether or not it should be allowed.

Like mentioned above, would it not be the same as loaning someone out and paying some of the wage?

No it’s not the same as a player being loaned because he’s not being loaned. If he was being loaned his full salary would definitely count on Leeds cap.

I just read the rules again and they state when a player is loaned the player no longer counts on the cap of the club lending the player but that his full salary cap value as calculated at his old club counts on the cap of his new club. The rules also explicitly state it doesn’t matter who pays his wages or part thereof.

So when Hankinson went to London he disappeared off our cap but whatever salary cap value he had at Wigan ended up on London’s cap. We could have paid all his wages and it wouldn’t have affected this in any way.

There is also another section of the salary cap rules that discusses what counts as a payment to a player and it says any payment he gets that he gets just because he’s playing for SL club counts on the cap regardless of where it comes from. It’s a catch all cause following a list of payments that you would expect to count and it means if a player is only getting paid some cash as a consequence of the fact he’s playing RL for a SL club then it counts on the cap.

So I am now even more mystified as to why those payments from his former club don’t count. They would seem to fall directly into this category.

[pedro]

I don’t think DaveO is questioning the how, that’s obvious. He’s questioning the loophole and whether or not it should be allowed.

Like mentioned above, would it not be the same as loaning someone out and paying some of the wage?

No it’s not the same as a player being loaned because he’s not being loaned. If he was being loaned his full salary would definitely count on Leeds cap.

I just read the rules again and they state when a player is loaned the player no longer counts on the cap of the club lending the player but that his full salary cap value as calculated at his old club counts on the cap of his new club. The rules also explicitly state it doesn’t matter who pays his wages or part thereof.

So when Hankinson went to London he disappeared off our cap but whatever salary cap value he had at Wigan ended up on London’s cap. We could have paid all his wages and it wouldn’t have affected this in any way.

There is also another section of the salary cap rules that discusses what counts as a payment to a player and it says any payment he gets that he gets just because he’s playing for SL club counts on the cap regardless of where it comes from. It’s a catch all cause following a list of payments that you would expect to count and it means if a player is only getting paid some cash as a consequence of the fact he’s playing RL for a SL club then it counts on the cap.

So I am now even more mystified as to why those payments from his former club don’t count. They would seem to fall directly into this category.

only if you loan them out on full wages.....some wont be able to afford this especially when you loan players to Swinton etc, so like I said how is it different to a loan?

[DaveO]

Like mentioned above, would it not be the same as loaning someone out and paying some of the wage?

No it’s not the same as a player being loaned because he’s not being loaned. If he was being loaned his full salary would definitely count on Leeds cap.

I just read the rules again and they state when a player is loaned the player no longer counts on the cap of the club lending the player but that his full salary cap value as calculated at his old club counts on the cap of his new club. The rules also explicitly state it doesn’t matter who pays his wages or part thereof.

So when Hankinson went to London he disappeared off our cap but whatever salary cap value he had at Wigan ended up on London’s cap. We could have paid all his wages and it wouldn’t have affected this in any way.

There is also another section of the salary cap rules that discusses what counts as a payment to a player and it says any payment he gets that he gets just because he’s playing for SL club counts on the cap regardless of where it comes from. It’s a catch all cause following a list of payments that you would expect to count and it means if a player is only getting paid some cash as a consequence of the fact he’s playing RL for a SL club then it counts on the cap.

So I am now even more mystified as to why those payments from his former club don’t count. They would seem to fall directly into this category.

only if you loan them out on full wages.....some wont be able to afford this especially when you loan players to Swinton etc, so like I said how is it different to a loan?

For a loan the cap value is unaffected by who pays the players wages. The rules are clear on this and section 5.9 states a loan is exactly like a transfer for the duration of the loan. It also states that for the duration of loan the player ceases to be a player of his old club for calculating the clubs salary cap liability and any agreements as to who pays his wages is irrelevant as to the calculation of his salary cap value at his new club.

So to use Hankinson as an example again with his season long loan if he was contracted to Wigan for £50k a season and loaned to London with Wigan paying £25k of his wages and London £25k his salary cap value is still £50k on London's cap and zero on Wigan's. If Wigan paid all his wages then it's still the same.

The Leeds situation is different in that he's not being loaned but is transferring so however the loan rules work, they don't apply. The Warriors are also not part of SL to how this arrangement affects them is up to the cap rules in the NRL.

What I am arguing is there is another clause in the salary cap rules that says basically any payments received by a player that he only receives because he's playing RL count on a players salary cap value.

Leeds are clearly disregarding these payments from the Warriors to get him under the cap.

So if they can, what is to stop me if I won Euro millions offering to pay 50% of every Wigan players wages for a year and halving Wigan's salary cap liability at a stroke? I am not a sponsor of the club (if I was that would fall fouls of the salary cap rules) or associated with it in any way just as the Warriors aren't associated with Leeds.